Role of Reverse Logistics Activities in the Recycling of Used Plastic Bottled Water Waste Management
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
This is an interesting manuscript that determines the “Role of Reverse Logistic Activities in Recycling Used Plastic Bottled Water Waste Management”. The methods are not novel but are acceptable. It should be noted the correction of several items is necessary in this manuscript. Specially, English language of writing should be modified in the whole of manuscript. Please study the “Guide for Authors” of journal, carefully and correct the manuscript based on the guideline. Moreover literature review is not up to date. You should use appropriate papers for this section such as Modeling of energy consumption and environmental life cycle assessment for incineration and landfill systems of municipal solid waste management - A case study in Tehran Metropolis of Iran; Principal of environmental life cycle assessment for medical waste during COVID-19 outbreak to support sustainable development goals; Prognostication of energy use and environmental impacts for recycle system of municipal solid waste management.
Best Regards
Author Response
Dear reviewer of our manuscript, thank you so much for taking your time to comment on our work and make constructive ideas. We made the necessary changes to the document and shaded the corrected portion in yellow on the amended version of the paper.
Responses to your comments are listed below, point by point.
Point 1: English language edition is needed In the whole manuscript.
Response 1: Regarding the English garmmer improvement, we have done the correction as much as we can on the revised version of the manuscript as per your suggestion.
Point 2: litrature review is not up to date.
Response 2: In the amended version of the paper, we incorporated recent articles in lines 156-157, 163-166, 247-261 that are most appropriate for our topic, including the suggested papers you indicated in your reply. We sincerely appreciate your thoughts and recommendations.
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Abstract should be changed and improved. This chapter should provide the purpose of the research, methodology (short version) and the most important conclusions. The paragraph in line 15-19 should be deleted as this is more appropriate for the Introduction chapter.
2. The work lacks a precisely and unambiguously described purpose of the work. I propose to indicate such a goal in the last paragraph of the Introduction chapter.
3. Descriptions of all graphs should be under the figures (applies to e.g. figure 2)
4. Please explain why in formula (1) line 253 the errors of 0.05 are used?
5. The study lacks an unequivocal summary (conclusions) resulting from the research. This should be completed.
6. The References chapter at work is not done properly. Read the sample article and correct the current inventory.
General note: In my opinion the information contained in the publication is scientifically valuable, but in order to be published in the scientific journal Sustainability, it must be supplemented with the guidelines contained in points 1-6.
Author Response
Dear reviewer of our manuscript, thank you so much for taking your time to comment on our work and make constructive ideas. We made the necessary changes to the document and shaded the corrected portion in yellow on the amended version of the paper.
Responses to your comments are listed below, point by point.
Point 1: Abstract should be changed and improved. This chapter should provide the purpose of the research, methodology (short version) and the most important conclusions. The paragraph in line 15-19 should be deleted as this is more appropriate for the Introduction chapter.
Response 1: We have improved the abstract as per your suggestion and recommendation presented in lines 15–27 of the revised version of the manuscript.
Point 2: The work lacks a precisely and unambiguously described purpose of the work. I propose to indicate such a goal in the last paragraph of the Introduction chapter.
Response 2: We have provided a clear goal of the study in lines 263-273 of the updated version of the manuscript, as per your suggestions. We sincerely appreciate your thoughts and recommendations.
Point 3: Descriptions of all graphs should be under the figures (applies to e.g., figure 2)
Response 3: We revised the description of figure 2 on line 235 of the improved version of the manuscript, based on your recommendation.
Point 4: Please explain why in formula (1) line 253 the errors of 0.05 are used?
Response 4: We clarified why we utilized the acceptable sampling error (0.05) in lines 294-297 of the revised paper based on your feedback.
Point 5: The study lacks an unequivocal summary (conclusions) resulting from the research. This should be completed.
Response 5: We improved the conclusions of the study stated in lines 626-655 on the updated version of the paper based on your suggestions.
Point 6: The References chapter at work is not done properly. Read the sample article and correct the current inventory.
Response 6: We reviewed previously published articles as well as the journal's author guideline. As a result, on the amended version of the manuscript, we rectified the reference section of our work in lines 685-842.
Reviewer 3 Report
The study entitled Role of Reverse Logistic Activities in Recycling Used Plastic Bottled Water Waste Management is a very interesting one that has as references a large number of bibliographic sources, numbering 70, and my suggestions are:
line 62- delete a square bracket
line 138- bibliographic references in one parenthesis [25-32]
line 141-instead of provoked to replace with caused
line 214 point after the end of the sentence
I think the conclusions are too long, they should be more concise.
Good luck!
Author Response
Dear reviewer of our manuscript, thank you so much for taking your time to comment on our work and make constructive ideas. We made the necessary changes to the document and shaded the corrected portion in yellow on the amended version of the paper.
Responses to your comments are listed below, point by point.
Point 1: line 62- delete a square bracket
Response 1: The square brackets on line 57 have been rectified, as per your suggestion, in the updated version of the paper.
Point 2: line 138- bibliographic references in one parenthesis [25-32]
Response 2: As per your recommendation, the bibliographic reference has been amended on line 133 of the revised version of the manuscript.
Point 3: line 141-instead of provoked to replace with caused
Response 3: As per your recommendation, we corrected the word on line 136 of the amended version of the document.
Point 4: line 214 point after the end of the sentence
Response 4: In response to your advice, we added a point at the end of the phrase on line 214 of the corrected documents.
Point 5: I think the conclusions are too long, they should be more concise.
Response 5: On the updated version of the paper, we improved the conclusions of the study expressed in lines 626-655 based on your feedback.
Reviewer 4 Report
The article is very interesting. The addressed issue of return logistics of plastic packaging is a global problem today especially in developing countries. The substantive scope, methodological basis and elaboration of results stand at a high level.
However, in order to improve the article, I suggest that the following comments be taken into account.
Can be changed:
In the description of the results, it is not necessary to cite most of the numbers in the tables. It is useful to indicate characteristic values and to interpret the data. The authors interpret the data, but quoting all the numbers in the tables is unnecessary for the average intelligent reader. However, it is important which values the authors consider worthy of emphasis.
The formatting of the text should be adapted to the requirements of the publisher. Currently, paragraph formatting is a fusion of European and American style, and this is redundancy.
It needs to be changed:
In line 547 there should be a reference to Table 12.
In line 568 there should be a reference to table 13.
In line 587 there should be a reference to table 14.
Author Response
Dear reviewer of our manuscript, thank you so much for taking your time to comment on our work and make constructive ideas. We made the necessary changes to the document and shaded the corrected portion in yellow on the amended version of the paper.
Responses to your comments are listed below, point by point.
Point 1: In the description of the results, it is not necessary to cite most of the numbers in the tables. It is useful to indicate characteristic values and to interpret the data. The authors interpret the data but quoting all the numbers in the tables is unnecessary for the average intelligent reader. However, it is important which values the authors consider worthy of emphasis.
Response 1: On the amended version of the manuscript, we improved the description of the results in lines 372-381, 385-395, and 398-405, as per your recommendation.
Point 2: The formatting of the text should be adapted to the requirements of the publisher. Currently, paragraph formatting is a fusion of European and American style, and this is redundancy.
Response 2: We noted that the editorial office reformated the origional manuscript and also checked that the structure follows the MDPI house style. So, we doawnloaded the latest version of the manuscript for revision as per the the message we received from the submission system of MDPI. As a result, we believe that the revised version of our text follows your advice and suggestions. Once again, thank you for your constructive feedback!
Point 3: In line 547 there should be a reference to Table 12.
Response 3: On the amended version of the manuscript, we corrected the reference to table 12 in line 529 as per your recommendation.
Point 4: In line 568 there should be a reference to table 13.
Response 4: As per your suggestion, we fixed the reference to table 13 on line 550 in the revised version of the manuscript.
Point 5: In line 587 there should be a reference to table 14.
Response 5: In response to your comments, the reference to table 14 in line 569 was fixed in the revised version of the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
This version can be published in the "Sustainability".
Best Regards
Reviewer 2 Report
The current version of the article is suitable for publication
